Right and Wrong has to be Absolute

Hoof Hearted wrote: »

In response, remember my source of Absolute right and wrong is from the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Please read the following:

Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) says that punishment "ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity," that is, only when it would be otherwise impossible to defend society. And the pope teaches that such cases of absolute necessity where society cannot be defended in any other way are "very rare, if not practically nonexistent." (#56) That view is echoed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which applies the principle of self-defense to the protection of society, and states:

"Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

"If however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

is the jist of it nonlethal means are to be preferred over the taking of a life, if these means achieve the goal of self/property preservation?
Couldnt agree more, but such a view intoduces a lot of room for a subjective call?

PDN wrote: »

Sorry, I'm not sure if you're taking the mick here?

Are you genuinely unable to distinguish between the following two concepts?

a) Right and wrong are absolute, objective realities. It may be preferable at times to commit a smaller wrong to prevent a larger wrong - but it remains wrong nevertheless.

b) Right and wrong are subjective, having no intrinsic value whatsoever. Whether we view an action as right or wrong is just an evolutionary quirk.

I can see the distinction between the concepts. However, to decide whether something is right or wrong requires a subjective judgement, based on ones norms. So it is not for a person to decide whether rights/wrongs are absolute or subjective, because the person has prejudiced their decision.

what is 'wrong' to one person might be 'right' to another.
(eg. cannibalism).
were going around in circles with this.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I can see the distinction between the concepts. However, to decide whether something is right or wrong requires a subjective judgement, based on ones norms. So it is not for a person to decide whether rights/wrongs are absolute or subjective, because the person has prejudiced their decision.

what is 'wrong' to one person might be 'right' to another.
(eg. cannibalism).
were going around in circles with this.

You are making a very basic logical error.

Just because we don't know which of several options are true, it does not follow that none of them are true. People may have different opinions of what is right or wrong, but that has no implications as to whether an objective standard of morality exists or not.

Hoof Hearted wrote: »

lempsipmax wrote: »

Is it wrong to steal a loaf to feed your family?
Are possessions wrong (why not share everything you have with those less fortunate)?
Is it wrong to judge others like you are judging Relativists?
Is it wrong to eat more that you need to survive?

These questions and more like them exist in the middle of the right/wrong continuum. It is very difficult to say if they are right or wrong.

I would respectfully suggest to you that the conclusion you have reached has more to do with a desire for clarity, than seeking out an understanding of the bamboozingly complexity of life and morals. Relativists are not to blame for the complexity of life they are just looking for a way of understanding which accounts for grey moral areas. You have ceded your opinion of this to the Magisterium. You account again for the lack of teaching on 'new unique and behavior' by saying that a Papal encyclical, may not yet addressed the issue.

Ask yourself which of the following images best represents the moral world as it is (not as we would wish it to be. Black is bad, white is good):


Relativism.


Absolutism.

Is it wrong to steal a loaf to feed your family? Yes it is wrong.
Are possessions wrong (why not share everything you have with those less fortunate)? TMK, there is no specific teaching saying having possessions being wrong in and of it self. Putting possession above God would be wrong.
Is it wrong to judge others like you are judging Relativists? I do try to judge only when the facts are clear on a wrongdoing. One must remove the logs from their own eyes in order to judge truthfully. Apparently it's a Relativist that more likely will utter the mantra "Don't be judgmental" even if the facts are clear on the wrongdoing.
Is it wrong to eat more that you need to survive? I don't know if there is a specific teaching on this, with the exception of Gluttony.

In exceptional situations we may not know what is right and what is wrong, but it is our duty to make a best effort to find out when a moral question arises and I know no other place other than the Magistrate that traces its moral authority all the way back to Jesus time on Earth in human form.

Thanks for the reply. There is no point in discussing it further though. You are so slavishly tied to the infallibility it the Magistrate that discussion is impossible.

Why do I have such a hard time getting my head around all this subjective/objective/relative morality stuff?

Ok, I'm going to try and get this all cleared up in my head once and for all this time. (Maybe I should start a thread over in the philosophy forum... I'll stay here for the time being. Lot of you seem to have a good handle on this stuff).

So, first question(s):

If someone believes that no objective morality exists does that make them by default a moral relativist? Can you believe that subjective morality is the only morality that exists and not be a moral relativist? Or is moral relativism more about saying "you can not make moral judgments about the actions of others"? Is that what it is? 'Cause I mean you could believe that you can make moral judgments on the behaviour of others and simultaneously believe that no objective moral exists right? You are just judging them based on your own subjective morality and there doesn't seem to be any logical barrier to that.

PDN wrote: »

None of us would say it is good to kill someone who is breaking into your house, but we would say that it may be necessary to do so to prevent a greater evil (the death of a loved one).

But that is not what is meant by 'relative morality'. Relative morality (a position IMHO which is inevitable if an atheist is honest) is that right and wrong are simply human conventions or evolutionary conditioning. In other words, sexually torturing a baby is not intrinisically wrong, but we only see it as so because it is usefully to the survival of the species not to subject babies to sexual torture.

If torturing babies is detrimental to the survival of humanity, then it must be "wrong" even by the standards of relative morality. I take it we are all humans contributing here, so we all take the subjective viewpoint of the human species.

But, if a lion kills a zebra for food, what is the absolutist morality in that killing?
I would say in terms of relative morality, it is right for the lion, but also wrong from the zebra's point of view.


Also, there is an element of semantics in your drawing distinctions between the "lesser evil" of killing a burglar and the "greater evil" of allowing him to kill your relative. You are merely breaking down the sequence of events into individual components; the bad (taking a life) and the good (saving a life)
If I ask you to define the overall outcome as either "good" or "bad", what is your reply?
I would say it falls into the grey area of relative morality, outside the black and the white boxes of absolutism.

Just to further illustrate the point on semantics, if you had stabbed the burglar to death, at what point did "killing the buglar" become wrong;
1. your failing to lock the front door, thereby allowing him access
2. your thinking up a plan to get the kitchen knife
3. picking up the knife
4. sticking it in him
5. twisting it
6 failing to call an ambulance while he bled

My point is that every action is composed of smaller actions. The logic exercise of adding up all the small "goods" and subtracting the small "bads" leads to a single moral judgement.

ISAW wrote: »

Not alone that but if "morality is hardwired" and we are genetically predisposed to it isn't it ironic that atheistic regimes were at the forefront to the most bloody regimes in history ( and not only in the 20th century) and the spread of the Christian church just happened to coincide ironically with this downfall in barbarism and murder and the spreading of atheism with an upsurge in it?

You know how this goes, we point out that religious regimes have resulted in huge numbers of deaths, you say true but not as many as atheist regimes and we then get into the rather bizarre argument that killing 50 million is not as bad as killing 100 million.

Pinker himself deals with the absurdity of such an argument on his web site in typical elegant fashion.

Morbert wrote: »

Instead, the majority of atheists would be against sexually torturing a baby because of their compassion and intrinsic love for the baby.

Things that are apparently worthless to a Christian (half joking) :P

Morbert wrote: »

We do not, in any way, base out morality on the survival of the species. That would lead to abhorrent acts. Instead, the majority of atheists would be against sexually torturing a baby because of their compassion and intrinsic love for the baby.

But, if you do not believe in an absolute objective morality, 'compassion' and 'intrinsic love' are just evolved responses - of no more objective value than a dog sniffing another dog's arse. No?